Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:11:39 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson schrieb:
> >>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they
> >>>> also are required to distribute the code.... :-)
> >>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
> >
> >> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
> >> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL.  But you'd have
> >> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
> >
> > What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
> > the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
> > to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
> > GPL!*" :-)
> >
> > It's a matter of pride :-)
>
> But technically your code ends up being GPL'ed. :-)
>
> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
> here. ;-) )

I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's ok with
it... ;)

Post a reply to this message